Rear View Mirror: 1974 Corvette Coupe

The early Seventies were a transitional time for American automakers. No make was spared, as manufacturers scrambled to toe the regulatory line, while still fielding marketable products. Insurance and energy mandates were tightening the screws on the automaking process, and as a result, most things high performance were either going or already gone. Hardly the best of time to be selling sports cars, but Corvette had no choice, and went about the business of selling more and more sizzle, with as much steak as they could still get approval for.

Because of this trend, 1974 was a year of several “lasts” for Corvette. For example, this was the last time that you could order a big block V-8. The ten year run that had started with the 396 in 1965 ended with the 454 in 1974. Some 3,494 buyers stepped up to the plate. In its swan song year, the LS4 engine added $250 to the $6,001.50 price of the Corvette Sport Coupe and the $5,765.50 sticker for the Convertible. (Yes: convertibles cost less than hardtops in 1974, as they would in 1975, after which that body style was put on hiatus. When ragtops returned in 1986, the script had been flipped. An ’86 Corvette convertible cost $5,005 more than a hardtop).

The ’74 model was the last Corvette to sport true, dual exhaust. The following year, Corvettes were fitted with a catalytic converter, and a dual/single/dual exhaust system. On the plus side, radiators were revised for greater cooling efficiency, and mirrors grew marginally, for a better rear view.

Perhaps the most noticeable difference between the ’73 and ’74 models was the rear bumper treatment. In ’73, Corvette started the transition to bumpers with greater impact resistance. The federal, 5- mph mandate brought with it body colored, urethane covers for the front end, but not the back. The following year, the process was completed, with body colored bumpers at both corners. The new deflectors added weight to the car, but arguably made it better looking, avoiding the half on/half off styling of the ‘73’s.

Corvette production was interrupted by a labor dispute, which shuttered the St. Louis assembly plant for about two months in the summer of 1974. Overall, Corvette sales tallied 37,502 for the year; up from ’73 levels, and just a skosh below the 1975 totals. Despite the pronounced drop-off in performance over the decade, Corvette sales showed surprising strength throughout the 1970’s. The 17,316 sold in 1970’s shortened production year compared with 53,807 in 1979.

6 Responses

Dan,
The one thing missing on the illustrations in the ad copy is the vertical split in the rear bumper cover, unique for 1974. I can’t tell from the angle of your featured car if the split is visible. A sad time for the Corvette performance indeed, but the fact that it survived, and with record sales numbers that still stand today, is remarkable.

When I think of split bumper cars from that era, I think about the great looking, post-1970 Camaro RS. But right you are, the ’74 Corvette split rear bumper was a one year only deal. In general, I always preferred the look of chrome bumpers over plastic. But the urethane covers on the ’74 looked better to me than the ’73. The plastic up front/chrome in the back look never did anything for me, although no less than Larry Shinoda liked that car.

Having owned a 1971 Ontario Orange Convertible, I am partial to the chrome bumper models. After 1972, the C3 Corvettes just didn’t do much for me. But, once again, judging from production numbers, there were a lot of people who didn’t share my opinion.

I don’t get it either. From a looks and performance basis, the early C3′s were a lot more appealing in my view too. But the late 70′s sales just spank the early 70′s sales. I guess one reason would be lack of sporting alternatives late in the decade.

No doubt that the mileage improved – the new ones get 29 mpg’s highway per EPA. Blind spots are certainly still an issue with the new ones. I drove the coupe for a TU review late last fall and my review of the convertible will run this Saturday. In both, I mentioned that they both should have a blind spot monitoring system.

Note: The Times Union is not responsible for posts and comments written by non-staff members.